Aye, but it might have to be rested. Too embarrassing to link with a team letting in more than six at home...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Printable View
Aye, but it might have to be rested. Too embarrassing to link with a team letting in more than six at home...Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Hmm, just think how the Brazilians must have felt...
It hasn't put James McClean off :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Harry Kane and Kyle Naughton are close to declaring while David McGoldrick, whose mother is "apparently" Irish, is likely to be called up on Thursday, according to Paul Rowan.
Good news if true...
What does "close to declaring" mean exactly? Passports in the post? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
How does Naughton qualify again? Kane qualifies through his Galway-born grandfather; isn't that right? McGoldrick's qualification is discussed here: http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3942/...reland-call-up
Although it seems he's eligible through one of his adoptive parent's Irish McGoldrick links anyway, could he have claimed Irish nationality by virtue of the blood-tie with his birth mother's father? That relationship, even though by blood, is no longer legally recognised, is it? I shall do a bit of research...Quote:
Originally Posted by Goal.ie
Kane's willingness (if the reports are true) is interesting as he's still pretty young and also recently stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Kane
I think it's pretty telling that there are no quotes from Kane, Naughton or O'Neill in the article. Even the anecdote/s about McGoldrick have been doing the rounds for over 6 months now.
Filling column inches?
Heard about Naughton before, though had though it was originally the, er, North he was qualified for.
This is the only link on his Wiki page.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/sheff...ghton-1-258198
Again, if he/they want to do it, massively in favour of fast-tracking as with any others, in via the Gibraltar game...
He'd still have been eligible anyway, even if it was through northern roots. Maybe his roots are indeed northern. I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I wouldn't advise us being anything other than completely professional nor would I wish to take the Gibraltar result for granted, but two prominent squad members of a top-half Premier League team still eligible for England? Definitely. Get them tied! :DQuote:
This is the only link on his Wiki page.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/sheff...ghton-1-258198
Again, if he/they want to do it, massively in favour of fast-tracking as with any others, in via the Gibraltar game...
Get Grealish in the mix too, whilst we're at it.
I dont think Grealish should be compared with these lads. He has played with us since he was 14. Crowley as well at least played for us and was obviously proud to do so, Naughton and Kane obviously have known about their eligibility for years and are only looking at us as a career move. Chances of either been regular in england squads is minimal. McGoldrick is no addition no better than best who again threw his lot in with us a youngster when there was lots of interest in him from england underage sides. Lads like best should be given respect for that
Ha, I'm well aware. I've had long, heated arguments with TOWK in Grealish's thread over the past while about his commitment. I, like you, see no reason to doubt his motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by liamoo11
I think he'd be worth a call-up though as he's clearly central to Lambert's plans at Villa this season and, if good enough for Premier league level, then surely can add something to our squad. Getting him capped and tied before his name becomes household would at least nip any potential James McCarthy-style media panic over his commitment in the bud. Such nonsense would only be a source of unhelpful distraction for everyone concerned.
I haven't seen much of McGoldrick but I hear he has pace to burn. Best would be more like Wakers, no?
Weren't James McCarthy's motivations to play for Ireland driven by a dying Grandfather's wish? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he ever made any comments about possibly playing for Scotland either - even when our former manager was publicly goading him into doing so.
I don't think anyone had a reason to doubt McCarthy's sincerity. I think the panic was driven by our ex-manager's Inspector Clouseau like attempts at relations with players.
Grealish has made some pretty contradictory statements in the past and at one point seemed to be on the verge of switching to England, so there would be more to fear about his long-term future.
Just seeing that the Gibraltar game is in October, a month after the Georgia game. I say if he continues to appear for Villa between now and then and impress sufficiently, then yes, cap him off the bench. There certainly have been stranger call-ups (Clifford).
I have to say though that if the kid hasn't made a definitive decision on whom he wants to play for, as I suspect, then I'm not sure how he would respond to something so cynical as being capped in a competitive game in the 90th minute just to prevent him from playing for England.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens anyways.
As Liamoo said, I would be just as inclined to call up Leon Best or persevere with Murphy and Doyle than to cap McGoldrick. The jury's out on if he is any better than Stokes, Cox and Walters and I don't think his talent or profile is sufficient enough to throw him in straight away. Not gone on Naughton for more than one reason. Kane could have something about him, with his profile and new contract; but I suspect it's irrelevant as he is pitched in with England.
Aye, that story is often cited by reputable sources, so I assume it's true. McCarthy always played for us, always displayed commitment since we first selected him and had to put up with near-weekly torrents of sectarian abuse whilst playing for Hamilton in Scotland after he first accepted an Irish call-up. He has strong Donegal connections, frequently holidaying with his family in the Rosses growing up, as well as Cavan connections on the maternal side, and proudly identifies as Irish. Even though he later said would have accepted a Scotland call-up had they first come calling, there was absolutely no reason for the media to question his commitment to Ireland once he'd accepted the call (and allegedly made the promise to his dying Donegal grandfather). It was insulting to him. For whatever reason, though, they did. He'd pulled out of a few friendly squads so as not to aggravate a prolonged injury concern, despite often playing through the pain barrier for Wigan in the Premier League weekends following; I suppose that got the paranoid worrying, but he was merely protecting his fitness. Martinez had made public utterances too around the time about him still being eligible for Scotland, which didn't help quell the groundless speculation, but McCarthy was always firm about his commitment and had actually met Trap face-to-face to confirm his commitment shortly before Martinez' comments. Are you saying Trap was goading McCarthy into declaring for Scotland? I have no idea what you're referring to there.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
"Contradictory statements"? What exactly has he said that's contradictory? And he was "on the verge of switching to England"? Where do you get this stuff? (I have a feeling I know what you're referring to, as we've discussed Grealish to death, but, once again, you're catastrophising. The FA simply approached him and his father...)Quote:
Grealish has made some pretty contradictory statements in the past and at one point seemed to be on the verge of switching to England, so there would be more to fear about his long-term future.
He's publicly declared that he wants to play for Ireland for the foreseeable future, unless things turn sour and he's pressured into switching. That sounds definitive enough to me. I'd be stunned if he shunned a senior call-up.Quote:
I have to say though that if the kid hasn't made a definitive decision on whom he wants to play for, as I suspect, then I'm not sure how he would respond to something so cynical as being capped in a competitive game in the 90th minute just to prevent him from playing for England.
Not sure what the actual connection is, but I know Kane has some cousins around the Clifden area and use to visit there when he was younger.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Don't let yourself be taken in by alleged reputed sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The story about James fulfilling his dying grandfather's wish is total fabrication.
File under myth.
His grandfather’s alleged last wish, 2008:
“I won’t be changing my mind. I’ve been part of the Republic set up for too long now and I’m proud to be part of it. I loved the experience with the Under-21s and it was brilliant to get my first cap. People think I chose to play for the Republic because my granda asked me to. It wasn’t his last wish, like some people think. He always said he would have loved to see me play for Ireland but that’s not the reason I made my decision. The chance came for an international cap and I decided to go for it because Scotland never asked me. There was never any indication they were going to either. I know I’m still young but I wanted international experience and it meant a lot for me to get it with Ireland.”
So you're saying he's a mercenary? Well I never. What does TOWK think of this?
More honest than a 'mercenary'...
Consider it filed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I enjoyed this quote from James in 2007 on Scottish interviewers asking him about possibly switching to Scotland:
"It’s always the same when you get an interview here in Scotland. They’re always asking so ‘what’s happening, are you going to change?’ and it’s at the stage now where I just say ‘we’ll see what happens’ to put them off and get them off my back. I won a Player of the Month Award but spent my entire time talking about that. But I’m happy where I’m at, with Ireland. The fuss can be annoying, but it doesn’t really bother me."
Jack Grealish tells his interviewers the same when asked about the prospect of him playing for England; "we'll see what happens". There's probably little to be read into when such a stock phrase is used by a player with dual eligibility, so why assume Grealish will be any different from the likes of McCarthy or McGeady? It's just being civil and polite. In the end, there was evidently no reason whatsoever for anyone to have panicked when it came to McCarthy's commitment. The FAI rightly build links with the families of such players (see the experiences of McGeady, Duffy, Gibson, et cetera) and they make sure everyone feels welcome. Noel King has done the same; he's taken Grealish under his wing and has made the lad feel part of the family.
Unrelatedly, I'm reading a book at the minute which mentioned in passing an England-born player called Tyrone Mears who'd played for Marseille a few years ago. For whatever reason, I decided to seek out some further info about him online; I think I was surprised I'd never heard of him before. Turns out, he played internationally for Jamaica, but only ever received a single cap. I came across the following amusing tale on his Wikipedia article; it explains why his "international career" was limited to just that one appearance in 2009:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
we shouldnt fast track any body just to tie him to usQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Really? Why not...if they are willing?
I wouldn't advocate the unconstrained fast-tracking of anyone and everyone who might be eligible (say, the likes of Daniel Crowley, for example) - so I agree in that sense - but if a willing someone is at or very near to the level of where they can make a committed contribution to the squad, I don't see the harm in getting them in the mix and nipping any potential media distraction over lingering dual eligibility in the bud. Grealish, Naughton and Kane are all playing at a level where they can add something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newryrep
Edit: I suppose, if they're ready, that's not really fast-tracking, is it?
It would somewhat prove what I am saying, wouldn't it? Houghton and McGeady also declared for Ireland partly because of ineptitude on the part of the Scottish set up. Even some of our Northern lads have toed a similar line.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
McGeady and McCarthy are more than good enough to play for Scotland so their situation is very different to some (all?) of our English declarees. Then there is the fact that there is nothing disingenuous about their attachment to this country. They did grow up with Irish family on both sides and strongly identify as Irish.
I would sympathise with Scottish fans who are/were angry about their defection, though there is no need for them to bring religion or sectarianism into it.
Clearly you don't know how a sizeable minority of Scottish unionists feel, or operate...
Let me guess: you do know, and if we want to find out we'll have to google it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
What does it prove exactly? Any decision a dual national/citizenship professional international footballer takes will obviously be coloured by a multitude of factors; some factors more so than others and possibly including things like national identity, benefit to career long-term and who has treated him well or given him opportunities. For every James McClean or Shane Duffy there's a Paddy McCourt or a Niall McGinn. You seem to live in a purist world of cartoonish polar extremes where such players are either unscrupulous mercenaries or potential patron-saint-of-Ireland material. Even if the SFA's ineptitude contributed to the decisions of Houghton and McGeady in declaring for us, it's not as if they hadn't simultaneous deep-rooted attachments to Ireland. SFA ineptitude doesn't contaminate their decision to declare.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
As for the northern lads, they've pretty much universally expressed that their dream was to play for Ireland. If the IFA ever cocked up, as they seemingly did in the case of Darron Gibson, it only made any decision to declare for us easier.
Whose attachment is disingenuous? It seems you'll always make the unfair and groundless assumption that (all?) our England-born declarers are simply choosing us as back-up because competition is sterner with England or because they'll never be good enough to play for them. Even when guys like Grealish have been playing for us from the age of 14, you'll doubt their motivations. How do they win with you?Quote:
McGeady and McCarthy are more than good enough to play for Scotland so their situation is very different to some (all?) of our English declarees. Then there is the fact that there is nothing disingenuous about their attachment to this country. They did grow up with Irish family on both sides and strongly identify as Irish.
Who defected? McGeady and McCarthy have always been FAI players. Why the sympathy exactly?Quote:
I would sympathise with Scottish fans who are/were angry about their defection, though there is no need for them to bring religion or sectarianism into it.
Well, it is pretty universal knowledge. Google, not required !Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
If you don't know by now, we'll award you the appropriate trophy in your own name...
;)
Burnley's Marvin Sordell is not only eligible for us, but is also plenty experienced at international level... That is according to the rather confused Alan Parry: http://balls.ie/football/knew-burnle...international/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls.ie
Harry Kane aiming for I̶r̶e̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ England call up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Tottenham.html
Where was Paul Rowan getting his info from the other day?
Probably Kane's agent. We've seen before when a player is rumoured to be considering declaring for Ireland that suddenly the newspaper articles appear with him expressing his hope of playing for England.
Ed Joyce in TOWK wind up attempt
http://www.thescore.ie/ed-joyce-inte...44688-Aug2014/
I have to say it'd wind me up to, and I was just having fun with my first line. "I'd have preferred to have played for Ireland but England was better for my career" is one thing from the kid of an Irish grandfather, but not from a 35 year old Dubliner. In fairness, what he probably meant was that England offered him Test cricket and top level ODI exposure, and cricket is pretty unique in this regard. I think rugby is in danger of following suit, with countries like Ireland and NZ able to "buy" pacific islanders via the 3 year residency rule.
Well, the residency rule when it's fully exploited in soccer, will 'kill' smaller countries inc.Ireland.
Yet more evidence of FIFA/UEFA being idiots.
How fully exploited do you envisage the residency rule to become? I feel it'll still be exceptional / marginal.
I know you keep saying that AB, but I'm not convinced either. The "residency rule" is nothing new. Why isn't it being "fully exploited" now if the supposed conditions for its exploitation have long been there? It has been in place for years, but I'm not aware of even one example of an Irish player refusing to play for us and then declaring for another country after five years of residence there and upon acquiring citizenship of that country. For it to pose a problem for us, an Ireland-born player would have to repeatedly reject Irish call-ups for years after the age of 18 whilst living in another country and then later declare for that country. How might someone exploit it at our expense? I just don't see how it would threaten our player pool really. What talented Irish player is going to decide to repeatedly reject selection and forego all international football, from youth level to senior, for at least five years post the age of 18 with the specific intention of declaring for another country after five years of residing there? I just can't envisage that happening.
I hear you gents and you're probably right, just have a very bad (substantial!) gut feeling about it all.
:(
I wouldn't fret about it, to be honest. Who do you fear is going to benefit from it at our expense? Most Irish players who play outside of Ireland play in the UK, but, by virtue of the special status of the four British associations, the four uniquely require that any player who might qualify to play for one of them through residency must have completed five years of education in the territory of the association for whom he wishes to play before reaching the age of 18. Even if the British associations were to collectively rid themselves of that agreed stipulation (they'd be entitled to do so by virtue of FIFA's regulations as "associations sharing a common nationality") and, instead, were to decide to adhere to the general residency principle, it shouldn't make any real difference as far as we'd be concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
If you imagine how a young footballer might think or if you consider the combination of factors that would be required for such a player to have the opportunity of playing for an adopted country through residency at the age of 23 or later, there's just no credible reason to fear the death or injury of smaller associations by virtue of what is already a longstanding clause. If a player wants to play international football and is eligible for only one country - the one in which he was born - he'll usually accept a call-up by his country at the first opportunity. He'll surely jump at the chance; it's the only option he'll have.
There's no way any player who wants to play international football will continuously reject repeated call-up attempts by his native association and, instead, decide that he's going to try and realise his dream of playing international football by playing for some other country in which he hasn't yet resided, of which he does not yet possess citizenship or in which he has only been residing for a short period of time via relying on spending five continuous years living/playing there and developing his ability to a level where, by the age of 23 (at the earliest), he will be considered talented enough to challenge for a place in his adopted country's senior international team. It would be to rely on the coming together of too many unlikely and unpredictable circumstances.
The reason why there was (misguided) talk of Adnan Januzaj potentially becoming eligible to play for England, for example, was because he'd not played international football for any team as a result of his rather rare situation; it seems he might have been holding out for Kosovan recognition for a period. Even if it had been possible for him to have become eligible for England at some point, the chances of him actually opting to play for them down the line would have been extremely remote considering he had invites coming in from other associations for whom he was actually eligible. As it happened, he accepted a call-up by Belgium.
Even if a player was a pure mercenary whose desire to play international football was driven only by careerism rather than by any sense of national pride, it would be just too uncertain and risky a career plan for him to, in pursuance of his goal, try and rely on the aforementioned scenario being realised. If a player is going to be good enough to play at international level, his native association will almost always have secured his services by the time he's turned 23 or before he could have become eligible for the other country in which he is resident anyway.
The residency clause benefits those players in whom a native association have never had an interest. It gives such "surplus" players a second option after a period of five years (at the very least) of non-interest in them post the age of 18 by their native association. When these players might acquire a new nationality, they'll be eligible to play for the association of their adopted country primarily because their native association will never have had any serious interest in them in the first place. So, there's no reason to worry that the clause will kill off smaller associations. Is there even one example in world football of a minor association losing out to a bigger power by virtue of the residency clause? I can't think of any.
I know Diego Costa switched to Spain with the aid of the residency clause after having played in two senior friendlies for Brazil, but Brazil are a major association with such an array of firepower that even a player of Diego Costa's ability had received no international recognition from them until after his 23rd birthday.
Bloody hell, Danny!
:)
Fair enough!
Ha, I was trying to imagine scenarios in which it might pose a problem and how it actually plays out in practice, so that was as much musing as anything else, but I'm pretty sure I've covered all possibilities.
But both of Noble's parents were born in England. Anyway, I don't think it's something that can be simply quantified by a mathematical formula like that. I mean, how would you quantify Noe Baba's Irishness using the same simplistic methodology as you outline above? Irishness is a feeling (that can, of course, be legally certified; meaning you're either an Irish national or you're not); it isn't something that can be quantified as a specific number, fraction or percentile.Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
But that's not evidence of anything. It's just conjecture. Or conspiracy theory, even. More likely, Mark Noble has been overlooked for the English senior team because he has never been deemed good enough by whatever managers they've had in charge. The same applies to Kevin Nolan. If the FA had a problem with Noble's "diluted" English identity, why would he have been allowed to captain their under-21 side? As I've demonstrated, they've had absolutely no problem with regularly selecting players of mixed heritage.Quote:
England have been a flop for 50 years, under achievers for 50 years, the evidence is staring you in the face, ie Mark Nobel, were he 100% English
I have little doubt he would have been capped by now. Exhibit #2 is Kevin Nolan, the Nolan sisters made him unselectable for England. I rest my case!!!
What puzzled me was that Noble isn't fully committed, yet Sadlier is all for his inclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé